Tougher mileage standards long overdue
Despite the startling advance of technology, despite our increasingly troublesome dependence on foreign oil suppliers, despite the estimated $700 billion we ship overseas every year to buy that oil, and despite the impact of burning gasoline on air pollution and climate change, we haven’t raised fuel-efficiency standards for new cars since the mid-’80s.
That’s roughly a quarter century.
In other words, the step being announced today by the Obama administration is long overdue. By 2016, new passenger car fleets will have to average 39.5 miles per gallon, up from the current 27.5 mpg. Standards for light trucks and SUVs will rise as well.
Yes, the change and others already in the works will add an estimated $1,300 to the cost of a new car, but that’s with existing technology. That cost should come down considerably as automakers commit to meeting the new standard. Even if it doesn’t, the consumer recovers the additional investment after saving 370 gallons of gasoline (assuming, conservatively, that gasoline is selling for $3.50 a gallon in 2016).
The official response by Ford Motor Co. tells you how dramatically the situation has changed:
“We are pleased that President Obama is taking decisive and positive action as we work together toward one national standard for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions that will be good for the environment and the economy.”
The near-death experience of domestic automakers is no doubt one reason behind that change of heart. But predictability is another. California, which has its own unique air-quality problems, has already won the legal right under current law to raise standards on its own, a step the Bush administration tried illegally to halt. Automakers did not want to try to meet two different standards.
The fluctuation of gasoline prices also played a role. When gasoline was at $4 a gallon, sales of SUVs and trucks collapsed, leaving automakers with huge inventories of unsold vehicles. When gasoline dropped to $2 a gallon, sales of those vehicles began to improve. Now, with gasoline increasing again, they’re uncertain how to respond. Trying to match industrial production lines longterm to the vagaries of gasoline prices was daunting.
Now that variable has been largely eliminated. Automakers know what kind of vehicles they have to produce: energy-efficient cars and trucks that improve our national security, economic security and environmental security.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
168 comments Add your comment
I Report :-)/ You Whine :-(
May 19th, 2009
8:03 am
Downsizing of America, against our will.
For what reason?
Setting record low temperatures in May?
BDAtlanta
May 19th, 2009
8:04 am
There goes Guvmint interfering in our lives again dontcha know!
Beat all the conservatives to it! Muahahahahahaha
DB, Gwinnettian
May 19th, 2009
8:13 am
“Standards for light trucks and SUVs will rise as well.”
Up to 30mpg vs. 39 for cars, I’ve read.
First question upon hearing this news yesterday–what’s to stop the ongoing nudge-nudge-wink-wink classification of more and more vehicles (cough PT Cruiser cough) as “light trucks?”
BDAtlanta
May 19th, 2009
8:18 am
That’s ok. By 2016 I’ll be riding the high-speed long distance and commuter rails Obama is putting money aside for.
America, finally back on the right track!
Brad Steel
May 19th, 2009
8:21 am
Whiner,
It does me good to see you proudly crowing your ignorance and paranoia with your first-poster eagerness. Your nut-job brothers must be proud of fearless leadership.
And certainly the draconian fuel standards could only be the work of power-hungry fascists who live for nothing other than to be the boss of us.
Cool weather in Atlanta in the month of May is unequivocal proof positive that global warming is a liberal media generated myth. It is as big a falsity as the “theory” of evolution.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 19th, 2009
8:27 am
Terrific!
If any previous administration had done this, would we have avoided
the auto industry meltdown and the loss of another American city (Detroit)?
Copyleft
May 19th, 2009
8:31 am
And our reduced use of oil would have improved national security AND eliminated the need for drilling in ANWR.
Which has now been eliminated anyway. Good news all around… except for the enemies of America, of course.
Goldie
May 19th, 2009
8:32 am
Good. The CAFE standards should’ve been raised a long time ago and maybe we wouldn’t have to be buy oil from terrorists today!
Shawny
May 19th, 2009
8:37 am
I think fuel mpg standards should be raised, but we are going about it the wrong way. It is about an average. So, the automakers can still sell the gas hogging hummers as long as they sell a car to balance it out. So, the automaker builds a microbox piece of crap and all is well. Doesn’t matter if they sell in the same quantities. They just have to offer one.
What should be raised is the standard on the low end vehicles, such as the hummer and light duty trucks. Each year, advances in technology are used to push for higher horsepower, that isn’t really needed instead of mpg. Today’s light duty trucks offer a lot more horsepower than mine from 1995, but the fuel mileage hasn’t increased. My old truck has enough power to do whatever I need.
Make them raise the mpgs on the low end, quit pushing the horsepower envelope, and less fuel will be burned.
Shawny
May 19th, 2009
8:39 am
Sorry, Ms. G. If a previous administration would have done this, automakers would have produced more tiny cars to offset the monsters to get in under the higher “average” standard, but Americans would have bought the monsters anyway until gas went to $4. Then the automakers would have tanked anyway.
Paul
May 19th, 2009
8:43 am
Jay
The uniform standards will help in the drive for more efficiency and reducing dependence on Middle East oil, as well.
New technologies will come on board. Vehicles will change. We won’t get there with what we have today. And if that ties into Pres Obama’s goal of reducing consumption enough to eliminate an amount equal to ME imports, that’s a good thing.
But even if we get there, I’ll predict we’ll still spend gazillions basing our military in and around the Middle East and elsewhere, subsidizing our ‘allies’ and fueling Moslem hatred towards us because of our continued presence.
DB, Gwinnettian 8:13
[[what’s to stop the ongoing nudge-nudge-wink-wink classification of more and more vehicles (cough PT Cruiser cough) as “light trucks?”]]
Only, as I understand it, the Obama Administration failing to change the rules by which those changes are permitted to happen. About half our vehicles are classified as SUVs or trucks, with lower safety standards AND mileage standards than cars. Subaru redesigned the Forester to fit into the truck category – and avoid penalties for subpar mileage. The manufactures simply respond to the standards the government sets.
BDAtlanta 8:18
Every time I hear about how much that will cost, I look at all the concrete and asphalt, the ongoing repairs, etc etc etc for roads. And it just keeps getting higher.
Redneck Convert
May 19th, 2009
8:44 am
Well, if this ain’t cause to break off and form our own country I don’t know what is. There’s only one way they can get that kind of average mileage. By taking our big pickups away from us. It won’t be long till us Southren men will have to drive around in a little runt pickup looking up at everybody coming the other way. Besides, everybody knows a big pickup like my Ford F-450 sort of stands for something–big pickup, big you-know-what. This Obama is taking our Manhood away from us.
Besides, this is against Free Innerprize. What’s going to happen to the gas station owner when we don’t have to fill up as often and everybody just rides by thumbing their nose? I’ll tell you what will happen. They’ll go out of business and all those Indians and Towelheads that own the stations will go on the dole. On our tax money. And the good old boys that haul the gas to the stations will have to settle for a job hauling dirt for some developer.
It’s all unAmerican and what we can expect of a Muslim like Obama. I guess I’m going to have to start changing my oil every 300 miles so I can drive my Ford F-450 for about 30 years. After awhile they’ll stop making big pickups. And I don’t want to drive into a place in a little toy truck and have everybody call me Tiny.
Have a good day everybody.
ByteMe
May 19th, 2009
8:49 am
Actually, Shawny, it’s not that they have to offer it, it’s that they have to SELL it as well and a piece of crap is still a piece of crap that no one wants, so it won’t help… unless they can dump all those little pieces of crap on the rental car companies, but that’s less likely as those companies like renting the bigger autos as well, since there’s more demand for them.
However, if they put a pluggable hybrid on the road that essentially gets infinite miles per gallon (since the gas engine is only used to recharge the battery after 150 miles of non-stop travel), that should help offset a Hummer quite nicely. Although I don’t know anyone that really wants to buy a Hummer now, even at the significant discount you can get at your local used car lot.
Joey
May 19th, 2009
8:50 am
How much of the Oil/Gasolene price increases are directly related to our refusal to allow exploration for Oil where ever it exist? Then we would be spending that $700 billion here.
The Global Warming/Climate Change Religion is a dying Sect.
Despite not raising fuel-efficiency standards since the 80s, air quality has greatly improved. However, by constricting the acceptable standards and adding things like Carbon-dioxide to the pollutant list, EPA has successfully convinced many people that air quality is worse than in the 80s.
When was the last time that any impact, cost or otherwise, estimated by our Federal Government, was not far below the actual cost? If it happened it was before my time and I am past 60.
godless heathen
May 19th, 2009
8:51 am
All,
No matter what technology can attempt to do, you can’t change the laws of physics. With the emission standards currently in place the internal combustion engines currently being put on the highway must be running pretty efficiently. They aren’t dumping unburnt fuel out of the exhaust.
It appears that the only “technology” that will achieve significantly higher CAFE limits is to make the autos smaller and lighter. The skins will be tin foil and the frames weak. And it will cost lives. So be it, we got to save the planet!!
Maybe there is an alternative non-polluting, economical fuel source on the horizon and the CAFE standard will prod the development of it, but we sure don’t have the technology and infrastructure to go to something like hydrogen within 5 years.
Or maybe the solution will be to install governors on all the cars. I imagine with today’s cars, it would just be a matter of setting a max speed in the car’s brain. 45 mph is fast enough for anyone to travel. It would save lives and lots of fuel at no cost to the consumers. So there you go, another problem solved and you are all most welcome.
Taxpayer
May 19th, 2009
8:51 am
One item (out of many) will be in generating appropriate conversions to allow for comparison of different modes of transportation. We’ll need to be able to compare, for example, energy usage per distance traveled for gasoline, ethanol, blends, electricity from coal, nuclear, natural gas, solar cells, wind, etc., as well as the cost of each form of energy, their impact on the environment, life cycle analysis, etc. The future is looking good for the educated. Someone has to do all that work. Will it be engineers in India, China, Korea, etc., or will it go to people right here in the US. One can get a lot of miles out of a good education too.
BDAtlanta
May 19th, 2009
8:53 am
I hate paying for it but expensive gas is the best way to move us off high gas consumption.
Tax the hell out of it. I’ll understand why and get used to combining trips and cutting out avoidable trips.
Paul
May 19th, 2009
8:54 am
On a related note, Ed Wallace has this to say in his most recent column:
“Does anyone still believe that Detroit deserves its current fate – that our manufacturers’ poor management or marketing the wrong products invited all this bad karma? If so, the irreproachable Toyota has dispelled those myths: their first-quarter loss totaled $7.7 billion. As as bad or worse than losses GM, Ford or Chrysler suffered in the same period. And if Toyota keeps losing like this, then retaining enough in their corporate accounts to continue their operations by this time next years is by no means a sure thing.”
ByteMe
May 19th, 2009
8:55 am
BTW, the engine is just one part of the equation. The weight being moved by the engine is another. A huge advance is on the horizon with nano-tech materials that are significantly stronger and lighter than the steal or plastic currently used for car body parts. You see some of these materials now on some cars, but imagine the entire car being made by it. That should offset the added weight of the batteries at least somewhat… And battery advances in the coming years will help there, but the limitation there is chemistry and the laws of physics.
Bosch
May 19th, 2009
8:56 am
This is good news.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s pretty astounding to me how the landscape of our country has changed over the past 100 years to accomodate vehicles. I hope in the next 100 years that landscape will change again to accomodate mass transit and bike paths. I also hope we will start building cities and communities where more can walk and bike to the store, restaurants, entertainment, schools, etc.
It can happen – and it all has to start somewhere – Georgia will probably be the last to implement such measures, but the tide is shifting, and that’s at least a start in the right direction.
@@
May 19th, 2009
8:57 am
“Auto makers on Monday said they were awaiting more information on how the new standards would be applied and what assistance they may receive to meet the tighter timeline.”
Does this mean I shouldn’t stitch up that hole in my pocket just yet?
Bosch
May 19th, 2009
8:58 am
BDAtanta,
I’ve written this before – I think driving should become less and less convenient. I hated to see those $4 gas prices – but it certainly made everyone wake up and think of alternatives to driving.
Copyleft
May 19th, 2009
9:00 am
So, Joey… Your ’solution’ is to not only continue our dependence on oil, but to INCREASE it?
Sorry, but I’m not seeing how that’s an improvement.
Curious Observer
May 19th, 2009
9:01 am
It’s simplistic “solutions” like Joey’s that are helping to keep us bound to the oil industry. Drill for more of “our” oil? Well, guess what happens to that oil once it’s extracted. It goes onto the world market for bidding like all other oil. China and Japan have as much chance of acquiring it as the U.S. does. And the United States has less than 3% of proven oil reserves in the world. Joey’s solution is no solution at all.
BDAtlanta
May 19th, 2009
9:02 am
Yesterday on NPR they were discussing some test houses in Canada that could generate more energy that they could use. It cost $80,000 to put the system in and the house were small homes like those built here in the 20’s and 30’s (think Garden Hills, Morningside, Va Highlands type houses.)
That’s all I know cause I arrived home and cut that story off mid-sentence.
ByteMe
May 19th, 2009
9:03 am
BDA is correct and as was shown last summer: the best way to reduce gas prices is to inflate them dramatically using taxes and leave them there a long while and use the excess taxes to help fund ways to further reduce consumption. After a while, the tax won’t matter, since no one will be using much of it.
And, Paul, the difference is Toyota does not have the long-term muilti-billion-dollar under-funded commitments to its workers that Chrysler, Ford, and GM have.
DB, Gwinnettian
May 19th, 2009
9:03 am
I’d love to stay and chat (this is a topic that’s fascinated, angered, etc. for decades) but for now:
Shawny, good discussion points @ 8.37; some form of superduper gas-guzzler penalties should be a part of this if they’re not already. However, I don’t fret so much about more “tiny” cars being made–what we call “tiny” much of the industrialized world calls “normal.”
Also, good on you to note how static mpg standards have catalyzed a rather nutty horsepower race for the past ten years.
Paul, if the Admin is in fact failing to change the rules about light truck classification, I guess what that means, practically, is that these mileage changes would be more modest than they’re being billed. Which isn’t necessarily a terrible thing, although we’re all about the honesty, so…
Lastly, I want to know, long term, what’s being done to encourage smarter development and funding retrofits for existing communities to link currently landlocked subdivisions by bike trails and sidewalks. I hope that’s at least on the back burner for this Administration, if not more prominent (it deserves to be front and center along with high speed and commuter rail; it’s a little, local solution that needs to be encouraged nationwide.)
Bosch
May 19th, 2009
9:03 am
Curious Observer,
Yes, a few months ago, during the Drill Baby Drill days of the campaign – the drill for more oil here was challenged by the fact that – I think Jay wrote this and not a blogger, but we don’t get a “hometown discount” – forgive me if I misattributed that line (I don’t want to be all Maureen Dowd).
ty webb
May 19th, 2009
9:04 am
bosch,
The answer isn’t mass transit and bikes. I got two words for you: Jet Packs. It’s the future.
ByteMe
May 19th, 2009
9:07 am
ty: and the difference between a jet pack and a strap-on bomb is…?
On the other hand, the “Monster Jet Pack Rally” could be insanely fun!
Taxpayer
May 19th, 2009
9:08 am
This is good news.
I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s pretty astounding to me how the landscape of our country has changed over the past 100 years to accomodate vehicles. I hope in the next 100 years that landscape will change again to accomodate mass transit and bike paths. I also hope we will start building cities and communities where more can walk and bike to the store, restaurants, entertainment, schools, etc.
Bosch,
You are giving away all the auto maker’s secrets. For example, how many bicycles would an auto maker need to produce in conjunction with the Hummer (for example) production in order to meet new emission and efficiency standards, on average. Then, imagine if these automakers also started making shoes and skates and skateboards. Average fuel efficiency just gets better and better.
Gas Tax
May 19th, 2009
9:09 am
It should be a dollar or more per gallon. It should be balanced with an equal cut in income tax. If you don’t drive and you work you come out way ahead. Less driving – more working. A good thing.
Bosch
May 19th, 2009
9:11 am
ty,
Yeah!!! I like jet packs – can we make those to run on body fat? That’d be awesome sweet!!!
Joey
May 19th, 2009
9:14 am
Copyleft: Typical of your responses. Assiging meanings that were not proferred. Lack reading comprehension skills? Arguing technique?
I did not propose a solution. I say the the problem, if there is one, is not correctly outlined by Jay. Jay’s introductory paragraph serves his purpose, but as is often the case serves his purpose only.
Taxpayer
May 19th, 2009
9:14 am
Moving sidewalks. I prefer using them at the airport instead of the little rail cars.
godless heathen
May 19th, 2009
9:14 am
Bosch,
Maybe the idea of an America with everyone living on top of one another suits you, but some of us prefer to live where we can whizz off the back porch if we feel like it.
The more I think of it the the more appealing a 45 mph max speed is. We’ll do away with speed limits and just regulate all vehicles to no more than a 45 mph speed. No more police resources wasted on speed limit enforcement. More time in the car to listen to Rush or NPR, depending on your political persuasion. And if you are in the car riding home from work, you won’t be at home running the A/C, saving energy there too.
Mrs. Godzilla
May 19th, 2009
9:16 am
ty
jet packs would be ok with me, but they pretty much guarantee every day as a bad hair day.
Taxpayer
May 19th, 2009
9:18 am
Perhaps godless should just put a cot in the store room at work. Take it to the limit.
ty webb
May 19th, 2009
9:19 am
Taxpayer,
The problem with moving sidewalks is that too many people treat them like carnival rides. They aren’t aware that the moving belts are there to supplement their walking. they get on and just stand there. Same goes for escalators.
Bosch
May 19th, 2009
9:21 am
godless heathen,
Lots of people whizz where they want no matter where they live.
“Maybe the idea of an America with everyone living on top of one another suits you”
Why, oh why do people continue to try and speak for me? I think I do a pretty good job of that myself – sometimes it might not be worth reading, or even elementary and slow and a little bit on the whacky side – but dammit – I can speak for myself!!!
Taxpayer
May 19th, 2009
9:21 am
Tis true, ty. And, what I find really frustrating is when people get on a broken moving sidewalk and still just stand there. Then again, some people are just slow.
Bosch
May 19th, 2009
9:21 am
“They aren’t aware that the moving belts are there to supplement their walking”
Why that’s just crazy talk.
Goldie
May 19th, 2009
9:24 am
“my Ford F-450 sort of stands for something–big pickup, big you-know-what. This Obama is taking our Manhood away from us.”
Redneck @ 8:44 — I can always count on you for making me spit up my Chardonnay!
ty webb
May 19th, 2009
9:25 am
Bosch,
tell me your not one of those people.
Bosch
May 19th, 2009
9:28 am
ty,
Joke. Actually I like to walk on moving sidewalks and escalators – it’s kind of an outer body experience – it’s like turbo walking, you glide as you walk – it’s a trip without the bad drugs.
Taxpayer
May 19th, 2009
9:31 am
Asimov described moving sidewalks as the standard mode of transportation within the major cities. There were sidewalks laid out side-by-side with the velocity of the ‘belts’ increasing as one moved across — sort of like we use lanes on the expressway with the innermost lane being the ‘fastest’.
Paul
May 19th, 2009
9:32 am
ByteMe 9:03
Your last sentence – a very good point. I think what Mr. Wallace was also saying was that for Toyota, long-term wasn’t the issue. If those losses continue, they could exhaust their reserves by this time next year.
DB, Gwinnettian 9:03
Well, with about half our sales in the truck/SUV category and given those vehicles have substantially less mpg requirements than cars, and given most people use trucks/SUVs as cars (to move people around) and not as trucks (on construction sites, hauling freight, etc) and given SUVs are people movers built on truck chassis, then yeah, the overall mileage increases could be a whole lot more.
Taxpayer
[[Moving sidewalks. I prefer using them at the airport instead of the little rail cars.]]
Moving sidewalks? Escalators? I have it on good authority the Bosch family nearly missed a flight because Bosch was standing, mesmerized, gazing at an escalator and refusing to move. The Other Bosch asked him what was wrong. Bosch said “I just don’t get it. What do they do when the basement gets all full of stairs?”
BDAtlanta
May 19th, 2009
9:33 am
Wonder what happens to the mideast countries as demand for their oil decreases over time.
“Sand….real cheap! Get your sand here.”
Frankly I don’t see oil and fossil fuel demand tapering off by much in our lifetime. But we have to start somewhere. But then again, 10 yrs ago I couldn’t forsee a black man getting elected President in my lifetime either. So…who knows
godless heathen
May 19th, 2009
9:34 am
Bosch,
I thought you posted this:
“I also hope we will start building cities and communities where more can walk and bike to the store, restaurants, entertainment, schools, etc. ”
Sorry if it was someone else.
Soothsayer
May 19th, 2009
9:35 am
Oil, coal, nuclear, solar, wind. Which of these forms of energy will we run out of in a few generations? As I have said many, many times before we do not have an energy shortage. We just don’t use the energy available to us. Why? Oil, coal, nuclear is what we know. Solar and wind are mostly unknown territory.
I believe the future for automobiles is compressed air. (You heard it here first.) Why? It’s the simplest, most effective way to store kinetic energy. Much more effective and efficient than batteries.
I believe the future for energy in this country is not centralized power generation, but distributed micro-generation. That is where each of us has our own solar power generation right in our own backyard (or rooftop) that is connected to the power grid. If sized correctly, each of us would generate far more power than we could possibly use. This excess power enters the grid and supplies power to areas where the sun isn’t shining.
Take a look at this imagine having one of these in your backyard. Only a small parabolic collector would be needed to run it. Oh, well got to go.